Privacy versus the public interest

Privacy versus the Public interest- this would have to be one of the most debated topics throughout my communications degree. As Tapsell and Varley explain in Journalism Theory in Practice there is ‘the uncertain boundary between the public’s right to information and the individual’s right to privacy’.


The students who presented their seminar in class this week made the important point that ‘what the public is interested in is not always in the public’s interest’. They also highlighted that it’s important to weigh up the good your reporting will serve to the public versus the harm it will to an individual.


This is such a broad topic with endless scope for discussion – for this reason I’m going to look at a specific example in this blog.


In 1997 it was revealed that Senator Bob Woods, a Liberal frontbencher was having an extra-marital affair. It was also revealed that he’d been claiming travelling allowance for being in Canberra on nights that he was with his mistress in Sydney. The Prime Minister at the time, John Howard, was aware of the irregularities in Bob Wood’s expenditure but chose to ignore it.


In February 1997 The Daily Telegraph printed a salacious front page story with images taken of Senator Woods and his wife in tense discussion in the backyard of their home. There was much public debate surrounding whether the photographs should have been published in the newspaper. Some believe the photos, taken from the roof of a car with a long lens camera, were an unethical invasion of privacy. Others, however, ague that a Senator, who was committing adultery, while simultaneously advising the Prime Minister on Family Policy, deserved the negative publicity and that publishing the photos was in the public interest.


Personally I think that what Bob Woods did was morally wrong and my immediate reaction was that he deserved the coverage. However I also recall the words of Belinda Neil, whose husband had an affair last year. When speaking on ABC’s Q&A show she explained how the media should stay out of adultery matters because they don’t know what goes on in people’s private lives and that a marriage is a very personal thing. She believes that it is the husband and wife who know each other best and that the media could never give an accurate portrayal.


I don’t feel that stalking Bob Woods and his wife at their home and plastering it on the front page of the newspaper was morally permissible, but rather a way to sell more papers. I do, however, believe it was in the public interest to expose Bob Woods. As a powerful man who was advising the Government on Family Policy, he should have been holding up at least some moral values. Philosopher David Archard agues that we shouldn’t expect our politicians to be angels, and I can agree with that, but they are serving our country and I feel we have a right to know what kind of people we’re voting for. It was also very much in the public interest to reveal that Bob Woods was misusing his travel allowance- using tax payer’s money- and that John Howard chose to ignore it. Such things should be made public so that society can make up their own mind. I think that perhaps front page coverage and stalker-like photos were too extreme, and invasive.


This case also makes me think about the way fame tends to be associated with a significant loss of privacy. At the same time we must remember that Senator Wood’s wife was not famous, so should she have to out up with stalker-like photos being taken of her and her husband in private discussion in their own backyard? Or does her marriage with a public figure mean she loses her right to privacy too?


Tapsell and Varley highlight the argument journalists have put forward that ‘by entering public life, individuals surrender any claim to person privacy: accordinly, they are ‘fair game’ for enquiring journalists’. I wonder what the term ‘fair game’ implies? While in some cases it seem fair to expose the misbehaviour of public figures, is it really ‘fair game’ to have accompanying salacious photographs?


This discussion could go on forever. What about grieving families? The newspaper will naturally report hit and runs, murders, car crashes and other various accidents. However, it worries me how far reporters are expected to go in order to get quotes off the grieving family.


All in all there are no clear answers. Every story is unique. I suppose journalists must use their common sense and weigh up how valuable the information really is to the public.